Sen. Chris Coons and some of his fellow Democrats in Congress are offering a good starting point to revitalize manufacturing in this country. A viable, sensible plan to expand high-tech manufacturing would pay big dividends for Delaware and the rest of the nation.

Manufacturing jobs are the great multiplier when it comes to wages. Good-paying manufacturing work, based on highly productive performance, boost salaries all around. That is why the dream of bringing back an auto plant to Delaware was so bright for so many people in the botched deal with Fisker Automotive.

The Democrats’ Joint Economic Committee produced a 14-page report this week that pulls together a variety of plans from a variety of representatives and senators, including Sen. Coons himself.

“Manufacturing Jobs for the Future” wants government, business, labor and the average American to work together. We need to sharpen workers’ skills, drum up investment capital, and fight the other guys’ dirty trade tricks.

Sen. Coons, in a Senate floor speech about the report, said American manufacturing is growing, but more needs to be done to push that along.

“Manufacturing Jobs for America is a campaign,” he said. “It is a campaign to build support for good manufacturing legislation that Democrats and Republicans can agree on.”

The overall arguments for manufacturing should appeal to both parties. The key issues are tax reform, education in schools and in the workplace and research and development investments.

After all, these are the factors that propelled the United States after World War II.

The Democrats’ report rehearses some older, but valid ideas about pumping up trade and building up our infrastructure. For example, manufacturing jobs are not automatically the same as blue-collar jobs. We need both. But the home construction industry, while important, keeps the money local. A manufacturing plant that produces goods to be sold elsewhere would be more beneficial.

As Nobel laureate in economics Michael Spence has pointed out, what we need are jobs in the traded sector. The goods or services must leave the area.

Jobs in the non-traded sector, like government or health service positions, are growing, but they do not pay as much as manufacturing jobs in the traded sector. If we are going to have a healthy middle class, we need jobs in the traded sector.

Likewise, not all infrastructure is the same. For decades we have treated highway money as a big pot to spread around, with cash distributed in every jurisdiction. That way everybody is happy. But spreading the money around isn’t necessarily more competitive.

Some Delaware legislators want to create a pot of money for infrastructure repairs. Someone wants to clean up beaches or dress up fishing docks. Others want the roads in their districts upgraded. Many of these proposals will have a limited effect. They will put the building trades to work for a time, but the long-term economic boost will be limited.

Suppose, instead, we examined the needs of Wilmington’s port and calculated what kind of return the state would get for that investment. Or, supposed we looked at what the poultry industry in Sussex County needs. Upgraded roads, access to rail, better irrigation? What would make that industry more competitive in the global market?

In other words, we need a standard to make spending decisions by. Without one, we’re just wasting opportunities.

The proposals in “Manufacturing Jobs for the Future” are worth a look. Nobody should expect Washington to make good decisions about which business should do what. But Washington can go a long way toward stabilizing the tax and infrastructure background.